…The J-20, is China’s first fifth generation fighter. Plans for the Lockheed Martin F-22 design were stolen by a Chinese national named Su Bin, who was sentenced to 46 months in federal prison for his crime. Aside from the obvious addition of forward canards on the J-20, the two aircraft look nearly identical. However China lacks extensive background in stealth technology, it’s widely believed that the J-20’s stealthy design is limited by their inferior radar-absorbant coating, production materials, and even those tell-tale canards. American defense experts have said that China’s J-20 will have a far larger radar signature than the F-22. The U.S. discontinued the F-22 program in 2011 with around 180 built. China, on the other hand, will continue to produce J-20s in large quantities for years to come.
Like the F-22, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was also reportedly compromised by Su Bin, leading to China’s J-31 program. This jet, still under development, possesses a greater operational range and larger payload capacity than the F-35
it was based on. There is an expectation that the J-31 will become
China’s primary carrier-based fighter once it reaches full production,
replacing the PLAN’s troubled J-15 once it enters service. Like the J-20
program, the J-31 is limited by China’s inexperience with stealth aircraft. Externally, the J-31 seems to borrow heavily from both the F-35 and F-22 programs.
Sun Tzu, the Chinese general, military strategist, writer and philosopher wrote around 500 B.C. “Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent’s fate.” He also wrote “Of all those in the army close to the commander none is more intimate than the secret agent; of all rewards none more liberal than those given to secret agents; of all matters none is more confidential than those relating to secret operations.” Clearly Chinese have mastered the art of stealing aircraft designs. They have used Chinese Diaspora, financial inducements and cyber attacks. Many Soviet aircraft and systems designers for induced to move to China with drawings when Soviet Union was collapsing in 1991. China has thrown intellectual property rights to the winds, and the worst has been on aircraft design stealing.
- Although popular with police and tourists, the device was banned in some cities due to it being challenging to handle
W Bush took a tumble on one, a cameraman crashed into Usain Bolt with
one, and Segway’s former company owner died using one
- Segway has since moved into scooters, which have proved a more attractive option for urban travellers
two-wheeled personal transporter, which the company boldly claimed
would revolutionise the way people got around, will be retired on July
While used by tourists and some police forces, the vehicle also became known for high-profile crashes.
It even resulted in the death of a former Segway company president, who drove one off a cliff in 2009.
#AceSocialReport – June.23: The move means that Macs will run on the same type of chips as the firm’s iPhones and iPads, rather than Intel’s………………..Intel had faced problems manufacturing its own designs, leading it to issue a public apology to computer-makers.
Apple Mac computers make jump to its own chips
By Leo Kelion Technology desk editor – BBC.Com/
Apple’s challenge will be to carry off the transition smoothly and convince third-party developers to update their apps accordingly: “We expect to ship our first Mac with Apple silicon by the end of the year,” said chief executive Tim Cook, adding that it would likely be two years before its full product line had made the jump.
The firm said the move would allow it to offer new features and improved performance as well as making it easier for developers to “write and optimise software for the entire Apple ecosystem”.
Tue, 06/23/2020 – 04:15Another day, another article where we reach the inevitable conclusion of being absolutely dumbfounded that the NHTSA and the NTSB still allow Tesla vehicles on the road.
And, another accident scene…
Today’s report comes from Germany, where according to FP, three women are now dead after a Tesla reportedly drove into oncoming traffic and collided head-on with another vehicle. The driver of the Tesla and her two children were only “slightly injured” but the car they hit had all 3 of its occupants killed.
An investigation into the cause of the accident is ongoing, despite some on social media reporting that the Tesla “veered left” and the report noting that the Tesla drove into oncoming traffic.
Others online have speculated online that the crash may have been caused by Autopilot, which may have had trouble with the road’s lines. You can see there are two solid lines on the road, as well as dotted lane dividers.
Meanwhile, a German court recently ruled that Tesla’s use of the term “Autopilot” is misleading. The ruling, unfortunately, came too late for the three killed over the weekend.
Video from the scene of the accident can be seen here:
Go to Source
Author: Tyler Durden
The lead author of two retracted COVID-19 papers is editor-in-chief of an Elsevier medical journal.
Earlier this month, two high-profile research papers were retracted on the same day. One, published in The Lancet, had concluded that coronavirus patients treated with malaria drugs were more likely to die. Published on May 22, it was officially withdrawn 13 days later.
Another, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found no evidence that widely prescribed medications increase the death rate of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with pre-existing heart problems.
The lead author in both instances was Mandeep Mehra, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and the person in charge of the Heart and Vascular Center at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
The second listed author was Sapan Desai. An online bio describes him as an “internationally-recognized double board certified vascular surgeon.” Desai is the founder of Surgisphere Corporation, a data analytics firm which claimed to have acquired 96,000 highly-detailed electronic medical records of COVID-19 patients from 671 hospitals on six continents.
The Lancet paper’s dramatic findings interrupted drug trials and changed government policy in multiple countries. It also increased the anxiety of coronavirus patients who’d been participating in those trials.
But six days after the paper appeared, more than 100 “clinicians, medical researchers, statisticians, and ethicists” addressed an open letter to the authors, and to Lancet editor-in-chief Richard Horton, questioning the integrity of the cited data.
Why were the hospitals which supplied this data not identified? Why weren’t standard statistical practices employed? Why no ethics review? Why didn’t the paper invite other researchers to examine for themselves the underlying data and computer code?
According to these experts, the medication dose sizes discussed were odd, drug ratios sounded “implausible,” the Australian data was obviously erroneous, and the African data seemed “unlikely.”
Yet none of The Lancet‘s peer-reviewers apparently noticed. “In the interests of transparency,” said the signatories of the open letter, “we also ask The Lancet to make openly available the peer review comments that led to this manuscript to be accepted for publication [sic].”
An article in the New York Timessays these events “have alarmed scientists worldwide who fear that the rush for research on the coronavirus has overwhelmed the peer review process.” Lancet editor Horton, it reports, now describes the retracted paper as a “fabrication” and “a monumental fraud.”
A headline in the UK Guardian says The Lancet has made one of the biggest retractions in modern history. How, asks the article that follows,
did a paper of such consequence get discarded like a used tissue by some of its authors only days after publication? If the authors don’t trust it now, how did it get published in the first place?…the sad truth is peer review in its entirety is struggling…
Neither of those articles mentioned an astonishing fact. Lead author Mehra is himself the editor-in-chief of The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation. Part of Elsevier’s scholarly publishing empire, this monthly journal hires editors for five-year terms. Mehra’s second term is coming to end, and last year the search for a replacement began.
As the posted job description explains, the editor-in-chief is responsible for overseeing the peer review of papers submitted to that journal. He or she is constantly evaluating research, sorting solid science from weak science. The new editor-in-chief, we’re told, must have “a demonstrated understanding of statistics and statistical methods.”
So how could a man who has spent the past 10 years in such a role have authored this pair of retracted papers? How could anyone with any statistical sophistication have taken such dodgy data at face value?
“No matter which way you examine the data, use of these [malaria] drug regimens did not help,” Mehra declared in a press release when The Lancet paper was published. But it now appears he didn’t directly examine the data at all. On the day the paper was retracted, he explained in a subsequent statement:
Dr. Desai, who served as a co-author and whose team maintained this observational database, conducted various analyses. As first author, these were provided to me, and on the basis of these analyses, we published two peer-reviewed papers…
In other words, this longtime editor-in-chief took someone else’s word for it. He failed to ask elementary questions. He took it on faith that the analyses had been properly conducted. Mehra continued:
It is now clear to me that in my hope to contribute this research during a time of great need, I did not do enough to ensure that the data source was appropriate for this use. For that, and for all the disruptions – both directly and indirectly – I am truly sorry.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the vaunted peer review system in action. Naive trust. Blind faith. By Mehra. By The Lancet. By the New England Journal of Medicine. Even when real lives, right now, hang in the balance.
Four years ago, I authored a report demonstrating that peer review is merely a sniff test. Typically performed by unpaid volunteers, it’s based on wholly subjective criteria, and is highly influenced by the pre-existing beliefs of those doing the reviewing. My report contains this paragraph:
In 2014, Science announced measures to provide deeper scrutiny of statistical claims in the research it publishes. John Ioannidis, the author of a seminal 2005 paper asserting that most published research findings are false, called this announcement “long overdue”. In his opinion, statistical review has become more important than traditional peer review for a “majority of scientific papers”.
In many places, statistical review still doesn’t occur. Even in our current situation, when COVID-19 research has the power to halt drug trials and change history, the vetting process at medical journals is a joke.
#AceSocialReport – Mar.28: But it seems that many are totally ignoring a very obvious way to reduce usage significantly, and that is by disabling autoplay on their web sites and in their apps: To give an example, a couple of days ago I was watching a show on Hulu, … but I drifted off to sleep………….Two hours later I awoke and realize that Hulu had streamed two additional episodes that no one was watching. I searched in vain for a way to disable autoplay of the next episode, but if there is some way to do it I could not find it:
What I wonder is how many people even want autoplay? I believe Netflix finally gave their users a way to disable it, but they need to affirmatively do so via a setting somewhere. But many other platforms give their users no option to disable autoplay.
That is also true of many individual apps that can be used on a Roku or similar device:
The new job openings positions include delivery drivers and warehouse workers, who pack and ship orders to shoppers, Amazon said.
It also said it will increase pay to employees by $2 per hour through April. Employees in the United Kingdom and many other EU countries will also receive a raise.
This will apply to workers at Amazon’s warehouses, delivery centers, and Whole Foods grocery stores, all of whom currently make at least $15 an hour.
Comment by tonytran2015: The controlling systems of nationally important industrial plants should only be changed at very few times called “system update times” and they should be totally isolated from the outside internet.
Comment by tonytran2015: Is this another replay of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation, and abuse of the legal system?